Memorial and Presence in the Eucharistic Body of Christ

Before I became Catholic, I was taught in my old Evangelical group that, of course, the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist was so much hocus pocus and that the whole notion of the Host and the Cup actually being the Body and Blood of Christ was a lot of superstitious hooey. So when Paul warned the Corinthians, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:27), I was taught this referred, not to the Eucharist, but to the Church, the Body of Christ. Whatever you did to the least of the brethren, you did to Christ, etc.

Now, to be sure, Paul is not happy with the Corinthians’ rowdy behavior. The Corinthians were being grade A bozos during their Eucharistic banquets. They were factional, they got drunk, and they routinely humiliated the poorest members of the Body of Christ. But it is also worth noting that absolutely nowhere in Scripture or Tradition is the Church referred to as “the body and blood of Christ”. This is language that plainly refers to what the bread and wine consecrated at the Last Supper and consecrated ever since in memory of him. In short, Paul warned the Corinthians that to sin against the body of Christ which is the Church is to sin against the body of Christ in the Eucharist. Conversely, to honor the body of Christ which is the Church is to honor the Body of Christ which is the Eucharist. The Eucharist is, for Paul, the beating heart of the Church. Indeed, it was what makes the Church the Church. Without it, we are a group of Christians who happen to pray together in the same room.

The reality that the Eucharist is done “in memory” of Jesus has thrown a lot of Christians out of whack via the process known as “heresy”. “Heresy” doesn’t refer so much to false teaching as to half-true teaching. A heresy fixates on some small aspect of Catholic teaching and declares that it is the only part that matters. So some Christian traditions have fixated on the memorial aspect of the Eucharist and reduced it simply and solely to a memorial meal, as though Jesus instituted the Eucharist as a (very strong) audio-visual aid to remind us of his passion, death and resurrection. All we are doing, on this theory, is calling to mind the events that happened to Jesus during the Passion, two thousand years ago on the other side of the planet. On this view, the Eucharist is nothing more or other than a symbol (to which the puckish Flannery O’Connor replied, “If it’s a symbol, then the hell with it.” And, indeed, Christian traditions which have arisen after the reduction of the Eucharist to a mere memorial symbol have said likewise and radically minimized or even abandoned the celebration of communion altogether. My own church was living proof of this, concluding (quite logically given the premise) that Communion was unnecessary since it was a mere symbol and that truly spiritual people (such as ourselves, of course) did not require such symbols any more than Catholics felt required to engage in footwashing every week.

What nobody knew or told me (till I started to learn about the Church) was that this notion of “memorial” was massively inadequate to the ways the New Testament writers though about the Eucharist. For the word used to describe the sort of memorial it is is “anamnesis”. It doesn’t speak merely of remembering something long ago as we might remember a fond Saturday afternoon in our childhood or a battle or some other historic occurrence in the remote past. Rather, it means a “making present”. It is the difference between remembering our childhood and remembering where we are right now. Precisely because the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ and not a mere symbol, we remember who Jesus is, what he has done and, most importantly, what he is doing right now in making himself present in our midst.

This “making present” is exactly what is occurring on the altar every time the Eucharist is consecrated. It is the fullest presence of Christ. How can there be “more full” and “less full” presence of Christ. As an analogy, consider the disciples, lurking around in their hidey hole on Easter morning and trying to make head or tail of the burbling of Mary Madgalene after she burst in them with the news from the tomb. While they sat there listening to her and not believing a word of it, Jesus was right there, as present in the room with them as he is with you while you sit reading this. Yet after that, he became even more fully present to them: he appeared to them and they realized that there were different ways in which he could be present. The same thing happens now. Jesus is present in various ways: in his people, in his word, in the poor and needy and suffering, and in many other ways. But he is fully present in the Eucharist. It is, says Chesterton, the difference between saying “The spirit of God pervades the universe” and saying “Jesus Christ just walked into the room.”

Comments

I’m a little late commenting on this article, but I’d just like to delve a little more into the meaning of the word ‘anamnesis’ in Greek. I’ve been studying a bit about Greek religion just lately as part of my doctorate, and I’ve discovered (what I’m sure others already knew!) that in pagan Greek there was a technical expression, anamnesis thysiaon, literally ‘the remembering of sacrifices’. This does not signify the rather meaningless sense of ‘mentally recalling sacrifices’, but rather indicates an invocation of covenant between the recipient deity and the human who makes a sacrifice. When Our Lord told us to repeat the Eucharist in ‘anamnesis’ of Him, He was in effect suggesting that performing the Eucharist was to share in His sacrificial act - which we do by eating His very Body and Blood - as a sign of our participation in His New Covenant. This makes little or no sense if the Eucharist is merely symbolic but is very clear when we eat the very sacrifical flesh.

What you are saying is: “I can’t imagine God answering a prayer he has solemnly promised to answer every time the Church prays it according to His command.” If you don’t believe God answers prayers or keeps his promises, I don’t know why you’d bother being a Christian at all. Priests can’t “summon Jesus from heaven”. But Jesus can and does keep his promise to answer the prayer he himself commanded when he told us “This is my body. Do this in memory of me.”

Posted by Charlie Woodbury on Wednesday, Mar 10, 2010 5:33 PM (EDT):

Thanks wayne for helping to make my point. By our body language and our talking with others we tell the
world HE ain’t there. Mass for us should start when we enter the church. For a person who has difficulty believing HE is there, how we behave in church can confirm or question that disbelief.

Posted by wayne on Wednesday, Mar 10, 2010 4:57 AM (EDT):

Hi Mark, your words have good history in them. And you say it understandably. What i cant buy is that a man can summon Jesus down from heaven and put him on display in a box on stage during a mass service.You know , every religion has some claim on Jesus. If they didnt , they wouldnt have the dimes in the collection plates.

Posted by Charlie Woodbury on Tuesday, Mar 9, 2010 7:36 PM (EDT):

I hope you stay on this subject at least thru Easter.
I believe HE did this miracle for people like me who would have a harder time with our faith without a physical
presence. HE could have transubstantiated to a burning bush, but that would have scared me off for sure.
Mostly I’m writing to say that HE is there in the tabernacle, and as soon as we enter the church we should
focus on HIM, because HIS delight is to be with us.
This is what is missing in a lot of us, the reverence due HIM. If we had not lost that, there would have been no need to bring back the Latin Mass.

Posted by Grandpa Tom on Tuesday, Mar 9, 2010 4:34 PM (EDT):

For us novices St. Thomas Summa Theologica is a great source of information. Pt. III Q.74-75 explain Transubstantion. visit www.newadvent.com to access the S.T. Christ said “this is my body.” Christ lieth not. Christ changed his flesh and blood to the species of bread and wine so we would not have to actually eat flesh and drink blood, but under do so under the changed species.

Posted by Mark Shea on Tuesday, Mar 9, 2010 3:56 PM (EDT):

Blake:

I haven’t the foggiest. I generally content myself with, “It’s a mystery.”

Posted by Blake Helgoth on Tuesday, Mar 9, 2010 2:51 PM (EDT):

What can you tell me about sacramental presence versus physical presence? I do know that sacramental includes the physical, but am still a little hazy about it. Are there resources you can point me to? I have read the hidden Manna it it brought up more questioned than it answered.

Posted by Cocon on Tuesday, Mar 9, 2010 2:28 PM (EDT):

Amen. Even before I converted to Catholicism as an adult, I came to believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. I wanted that, needed it, saw the many good fruits of it in my family and my friends, and the Holy Spirit called me to the Catholic church so that the Real Presence might be a regular part of my life. Non Cathlolic churches that preach symbnolism and such are just in denial.

I was wondering if you could point me to the resource for the very last reference to Chesterton and how he described the difference? Was it in one of his books or where can I read his thoughts in their full context? Thanks. Pax Christi

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

Name:

Email:

Write your comment:

Please enter the word you see in the image below:

Notify me of follow-up comments.

Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.

About Mark Shea

Mark P. Shea is a popular Catholic writer and speaker. The author of numerous books, his most recent work is The Work of Mercy (Servant) and The Heart of Catholic Prayer (Our Sunday Visitor). Mark contributes numerous articles to many magazines, including his popular column “Connecting the Dots” for the National Catholic Register. Mark is known nationally for his one minute “Words of Encouragement” on Catholic radio. He also maintains the Catholic and Enjoying It blog. He lives in Washington state with his wife, Janet, and their four sons.